Free association.

Freedom of the individual.

/r/Libertarian is for both philosophical and political libertarians of all kinds including, but not limited to the various "types" listed below, and is not associated with the Libertarian Party. This is a community to discuss free markets and free societies with free minds. As such, we truly believe in spontaneous order and don't formally regulate content (as encouraged by reddiquette). A few general guidelines will help everyone:

Please don't downvote comments. Especially because you disagree with a comment. No one should be shut out of a conversation because you disagree with them. In this subreddit: One is zero, zero is negative. No one should be below zero unless it's pharma spam or something.

Participate and submit content Please take some time to submit things that foster discussion on libertarian topics. This is not meant to discourage image macros, which are nothing more than glorified self posts, and are allowed in /r/libertarian. Read through those links if you want, but don't message us about it.

Report off topic pharma/revenue spam only, not trolling, or content or comments you disagree with.

Don't like the content? DON'T REPORT IT OR MESSAGE US ABOUT IT ... since we aren't going to tag it, remove it or ban anyone. Go to the new queue and vote on the submissions there if the content bothers you.

I don't understand how we can be making money off of going to war. It seems like we spend more money on going to war than we could possibly make up for by "taking other people's stuff." I'm not saying he's wrong, I'm just wondering how war is profitable and who it could be profitable too.

I know very little about the subject and it just doesn't make sense to me.

On net, absolutely war is a massive waste of capital and resources; however, whos resources are the politicians wasting, ours. Meanwhile the arms manufacturers and other powerful lobbies are all well paid and happy.

I think there are a lot of fundamental things I don't understand. What about the government? Aren't people in the government making the decision to go to war, so wouldn't they be the ones who want to profit off of it? Or are they profiting off of it through the people who lobby?

I'm not necessarily asking for all my questions to be answered; it's just frustrating to think about when I really don't understand it. There's no logical conclusion my brain can come to about it.

Well think about it, if the people who initiate all of the wars were themselves personally responsible for all of the costs how many wars do you think we would have? The problem is they aren't the ones paying the taxpayers are. So while wars costs taxpayers untold amounts of money and resources it can be very lucrative for the military contractors and arms manufacturers who receive the tax payer dollars. These companies, with their new found success, can then fund the campaigns of candidates who support more military intervention and increased military budget.

The category of victims we call “OTHER” is classified differently depending on the source. The Obama administration classifies any able-bodied male a military combatant unless evidence is brought forward to prove otherwise. This is a very grey area for us. These could be neighbors of a target killed. They may all be militants and a threat. What we do know for sure is that they are targeted without being given any representation or voice to defend themselves.

The Obama administration classifies any able-bodied male a military combatant unless evidence is brought forward to prove otherwise.

I don't understand how facts like this don't convince people that we aren't dealing simply with people like ourselves, who might have different views, but rather with sociopaths, drunk with power, who if left unchecked will reduce our country to an absolute despotism.

Where are the citations for each of these? They should have a link to each claimed source of casualty numbers. These numbers seem fishy to me without that data.

For instance, I hovered over Oct 3, 2008. There are two entries - both for Datta Khel.

One has 3 deaths, (2 children, one civilian).
Another has 21 deaths (3 children, 8 civilians).

But it sounds like it's the exact same strike to me - both descriptions sound like they're describing the exact same mother and children. How can we verify that these are separate attacks? How can we verify that these people aren't being counted multiple times to artificially inflate the numbers?

Furthermore, how can we even verify that these numbers are accurate? Searching this strike gives me this:

According to a public opinion survey conducted between November 2008 and January 2009 by the Pakistani Aryana Institute for Regional Research and Advocacy, approximately half of the respondents considered drone strikes in Federally Administered Tribal Areas accurate and approximately the same number of respondents said that the strikes did not lead to anti-American sentiment and were effective in damaging the militants. The researchers concluded that 'The popular notion outside the Pakhtun belt that a large majority of the local population supports the Taliban movement lacks substance.' According to Farhat Taj a member of AIRRA the drones have never killed any civilians. Some people in Waziristan compare the drones to Ababils, the holy swallows sent by Allah to avenge Abraha, the invader of the Khana Kaaba